They say a briefing that they got didnt provide strong justification for the killing of irans top general. Well hear from House Speaker nancy pelosi next hour. Also, a pair of republicans in the senate say their own intel briefing was not at all satisfactory. Senators mike lee and rand paul calling it insulting, demeaning and inadequate. Remarkable criticism from within the republican party. Lets begin with pentagon correspondent barbara starr. I understand you have new reporting this morning. Can you help clear this up in effect for americans . What the intention, what the pentagon believes irans intention was as opposed to what the white house is saying now . Yesterday, a number of Administration Officials were privately briefing reporters that they thought that iran launched these missiles with no intention of killing americans and they were purposely aiming them at areas on these bases where americans were not. Late yesterday afternoon, the chairman of the joint chiefs, general mark milley, fourstar, multiple command positions on front lines, had a very Different Military view of the situation. Told reporters he believed the iranians were out to kill americans. And then Vice President pence weighed in this morning on that very point. The Ballistic Missiles fired at american bases outside erbil we believe were intended to kill americans. We believe that was the intention of the iranians. So, look, the iranians are firing multiple Ballistic Missiles at great distances. Would they have the precision to fire at particular points where they were absolutely sure there would not be american troops . Probably not. Thats a pretty far stretch. But a couple of things did happen behind the scenes. The iranians did give warning through third parties. That helps the u. S. Know what was coming and u. S. Satellites and radar picked up signs of those missiles being launched. That gave them enough time to move americans out of the way. So that helped, but the general consensus is that the iranians could not have really known that there would not be americans that they might actually, you know, result it might result in casualties. The damage assessment, in fact, is that the missiles hit a helicopter was damaged. Tents were damaged where americans might have been. Some runways were damaged. So these did not hit in just vast, open areas. A lot of concern that they get a good understanding of what the iranians were really up to. Yeah, and barbara, thank you for that. There is great detailed reporting, your reporting on cnn. Com about what went into the president s calculation not to strike back at iran. Barbara, thank you. Lets goat our Senior International correspondent Fred Pleitgen in tehran. What are we learning about the new threats coming overnight from the Iranian Regime . New threats from the iranians. And also brandnew reporting that we just got here from the head of the revolutionary Guard Aerospace forces. This is the commander of the forces that both launched that Ballistic Missile attack at those bases housing the u. S. Troops on it in retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Hes also the commander of the forces that downed a u. S. Drone earlier this year. The big takeaway from what he said, this was a press conference that just ended, he said the aim of irans strikes against the u. S. Targets in iraq was not to kill troops but to hit americas military machine, as he puts it, and then he goes on to say, this is key. He said the strikes are the beginning of a widespread operation to avenge Qassem Soleimani. So the iranians are essentially saying, first of all, they didnt intend to kill u. S. Forces. They wanted to hit American Military hardware. And theyre saying this operation to avenge Qassem Soleimani continues. The end of the first phase may be over but theyre saying this is a long game and to expect further strikes in the not too distant future. Those are two significant things. He also goes on to say, and this is something that seems maybe a little contradictory. He also goes on to say the revolutionary guard believes that tens of people were either killed or injured in these strikes. Obviously, before that saying they didnt intend to kill any americans and then saying may be killed or injured. Not provide anything evidence. We know President Trump came out and said all americans on those bases, all people on those bases were accounted for. Not sure whether this is some sort of trolling the iranians are doing but they said two things. They didnt intend to kill u. S. Personnel and they do intend to continue their retaliation, guys. We should note the pentagon would have to let americans know if u. S. Forces were killed there so no evidence of that. Fred pleitgen in iran, thank you. Lauren fox is on capitol hill. The house is going to take up a vote on limiting the president s war powers. That will be this afternoon. I just want to given that you have republicans now questioning the administrations cause for war here, the intelligence, is there any chance that the senate might also pass this resolution or does it stop in the house . Well, thats the big question at this point, jim. Ill tell you essentially what we expect in the house is potentially a few defections. Thats according to one republican source i talked to this morning who said you can expect the normal players, people like Thomas Massey of kentucky who is more libertarian minded when it comes to war powers to vote with the democrats perhaps on this issue. But in the senate, thats the big question because, remember, after yesterdays briefing, there was a lot of frustration about what they heard from the administration. Heres what mike lee and rand paul had to say after that briefing. To come in and tell us that we cant debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against iran. Its unamerican. Its unconstitutional. And its wrong. The constitution said the power to declare war was to be given to congress. They specifically did not give that power to the president. I didnt learn anything in the hearing i hadnt heard in a newspaper already and none of it was overwhelming that x was going to happen. Of course, the question here, jim, is whether or not there is going to be more republicans who come out and say essentially what we heard from lee and paul yesterday. I should note that they have been in this place for a long time, since theyve come to capitol hill. Theyve argued essentially that Congress Needs more of a role when it comes to the American Foreign policy abroad. So that is a position theyve held for a while but it will be interesting to see if romney or collins or others come along. Jim and poppy . Okay, lauren fox, thanks so much for the reporting. Joining us to talk about all of what weve heard just, mike rogers and kelly magman. She served on the National Security council for president george w. Bush and president obama. Nice to have you both here. Chairman rogers, let me begin with you. Your reaction to the reaction from republican senators mike lee and rand paul. You say the administration is obligated to start working with congress more but also say that Congress Needs to act more like adults when it comes to National Security. Are you concerned with the rhetoric and the way theyre saying it or are you concerned with what they are saying . Not necessarily what theyre saying. I have i was one that also believed the aumf had long reached its expiration date. Under obama, i was working with a group of members to try to get it reauthorized and make sure congress had an active and Important Role in that process. I think congress walked away from that responsibility since 2002. So we do need some aumf, but doing it for political purposes to say, i dont like the president so im going to not let him do x or y is not a way to conduct Foreign Policy or National Security. And i can tell you this. As a chairman of the committee who got the most Sensitive Information and then i would go to these briefings that were broader wut eer with more membe clearly they had necked down or at least not given the most Sensitive Information to this group of members, and they were always frustrated. So i understand their frustration and i think what chairman milley was saying is that that information that allowed them to that allowed them to make the decision to do the strike was exquisite, meaning it was very, very sensitive. Meaning it probably came from places that any discussion around that information might disclose how they got it is my best guess from everything im seeing and hearing today. Kelly, you have disconnects, well, contradiction from the administration as to what irans intention was here. You have some in the administration saying we think iran intentionally missed. And there were a lot of communications in advance of this tactic which seem to back that on up. Get out of the way. Were about to fire. But then you heard the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. I want to get your reaction. I believe based on what i saw and what i know that they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft and to kill personnel. Thats my own personal assessment. It gets to the administrations decision not to retaliate. Why this contradiction coming from the administration . Listen, i think its reasonable to expect that the iranians when they fired Ballistic Missiles were intending to hit something. I think that its very likely the case that the iranians did expect some sort of casualty damage on our side. But i think its really important to understand that right now it feels a little like the administration is taking a bit of a victory lap. I think its very premature. I think that we are in it for the long haul. I think the iranians will unfold their reactions to the Soleimani Killing over time and theyre going to do it in more deniable ways. Im a little concerned weve declared victory and everything is fine now. So republican congresswoman liz cheney who serves in the House Armed Services committee has this take. The war powers resolution just introduced by congresswoman slotkin dishonors every member of Americas Armed forces by equating iranian attacks against our men and women in uniform with u. S. Action to kill the worlds deadliest terrorist. Disgrace. I wonder if lost in that message was the fact he wise not just a terrorist, which he was. But also a leader, a government leader in iran. And that is the key distinction, and theres a reason why the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration didnt take him out when they had those opportunities. What do you think of what congresswoman cheney is saying here, chairman rogers . To me, this feeds into the narrative about these members need to be adults when it comes to National Security. If you are on one team and saying it was all wrong and terrible and were going to tell you why and tell the world why it was terrible, i dont think thats helpful. I think there are places for that in congress to have those conversations. And same the other way about questioning peoples patriotism because they have differences of opinion. I never think its a good idea. But facts matter. This is my point about being adults. When that talking point comes up, well, the Bush Administration said no and the Obama Administration said no, and i was there for both of those, it was never i have a cold today. I cant talk. Qassem soleimani never left iran. He never, never engaged the way hes been engaging in the last few years. And we saw it at the last piece of the Obama Administration where he was supplying, getting the Houthi Rebels in yemen arme. So you cant say they didnt do it then because of x and the circumstances have changed. Thats an important point. He was much more active. He was in syria planning operations. He had participated in the planning of the operation that killed an american just several weeks before that. And so those facts matter. And i think its hard for people just to come down and say yes or no and i dont like the president , thats my decision or i love the prrkesident, thats decision. None of that is an adult conversation about what the threats are. Speaking of adult conversation, alyssa slotkins husband is a retired colonel. An Apache Helicopter pilot. They met in iraq and one of their children serves. So to say disrespectful to the military, doesnt seem to have a lot of basis. My point exactly. My point before you go. Its not over. Iran has enormous capabilities. What kind of thichk things doe u. S. Have to be on alert from in the coming days and weeks from iran . Thaeyll look for an opportunity to target senior American Military official, possibly a diplomat for either kidnapping or killing. You can potentially see cyberattacks. I think director mccabe was on earlier speaking about the potential for that. So the iranians have many tools at their disposal. They have proxies around the region. Hezbollah and within iraq. So their main goal right now is to put pressure on the iraqi government, i think, also to push us out of iraq. So theyre playing a much bigger strategic game than what were playing. What were tactsical game and i think its very dangerous. Thanks to both of you. Still to come pressure on pelosi. Now members of her own party say its time to hand over the articles of impeachment to the senate. Will she budge . Will it happen this week . Ukrainian investigators are now looking into the possibility that an antiaircraft missile brought down a plane in iran killing 176 people. This video shows, you see it there, that plane on fire as it came to the ground. And forget brexit. The headlines today all about megxit. They announce their intentions to step back from their royal duties and why wasnt the queen informed . Were live from london. music if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, Little Things can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not an injection or a cream. Its a pill that treats differently. For psoriasis, 75 clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. For psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. And the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. It may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. Tell your doctor about your medicines and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Ready to treat differently with a pill . Otezla. Show more of you. Remember, you have out the hilton app. Can the hilton app help us win . Hey, heywere all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright . Man, you guys are adorable alright, lets go find your coach, come on book with the hilton app. Expect better. Expect hilton. Welcome back. Pressure seeming to mount on House Speaker nancy pelosi to send over the two articles of impeachment to the senate. Pressure from some and some leaders in her own party. I think it is time to send impeachment to the senate and let Mitch Mcconnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is. In a little over an hour, shell be at that podium there. Possible she announce it then . Rachael bade and michael gerhardt. Michael also testified before the House Judiciary Committee during last months impeachment hearings and in the clinton impeachment. So rachael, just on the hill at this point, what are you hearing about when nancy pelosi is likely to send over the articles to the senate . Listen, right now, its a lot of speculation. A lot of people thought shed do it on monday and then she held out. Its clear that shes holding increasingly a losing hand here. Pelosi didnt have a lot of leverage to begin with but now as more and more democrat comes out and say its time to send the articles over to the senate, shes really losing leverage and this is really undercutting her case. Its telling that adam smith told cnn this morning that he was also of the mind that it was time to move on because house members, in particular, rarely speak out against Speaker Pelosi. They just dont do it. And to see smith, the chairman in her own leadership team, push back against her, thats really significant. I think thats a great point, rachael. Weve heard similar sentiment from angus king who is independent but caucuses with democrats. Joe manchin. I wonder what you think nancy pelosi and the democrats in the house gained from waiting. Well, they obviously gained some time. And i am not sure what else theyve gained. I think they were hoping for some leverage. I think hopefully maybe to put some pressure on the president to see what he would do next. Perhaps put some pressure on mcconnell. Perhaps give the Senate Democrats some opportunity to come together and put some extra pressure on those swing republicans. Those few republicans that might have broken away in